Tank for Wembanyama (2 Viewers)

[Mediocre Man]

Trading any number of combinations of players. Teams trade for picks all the time without giving up Dame caliber players.

Trading our entire roster wouldn’t get us the draft capital that Dame would, so from 12 to 0. Easier to get lucky picking top 10 than top 30

 

[Mediocre Man]

Clayton?

and no, I'd rather Ant was traded



Siakam seems the most realistic target in my view. But I'm not sure how realistic considering the three years left of both Ant's and Nurk's deals. I think Nurkic may have negative value, all things considered. Ant, Nas, & Keon might be more appealing to Toronto

John Collins? for some reason he fell off a cliff this season. I'd like Ant traded but I'd rather he was traded for more of a sure thing than Collins

Claxton, not Clayton.
I’d like Ant traded for more as well, but what value does he hold? IF they rebuild and move on from Young, then maybe Ant makes sense

 

[Phatguysrule]

Trading our entire roster wouldn’t get us the draft capital that Dame would, so from 12 to 0. Easier to get lucky picking top 10 than top 30

It doesn't matter, IMO (based on the history of teams trading their best players) because in trading Dame we aren't likely to get better than we can get with him.

We're going to have to get lucky regardless. By keeping Dame we are closer to competing than we could realistically hope to be even years after trading him.

If we have to use all of that draft capital in the mere HOPES of getting a star like Dame then we wind up in the same place that we are now, likely at best.

I'd much prefer taking a swing with Dame and maybe only getting to the second round than giving up now and spending the next decade trying to get back into the playoffs.

 

[Samuel]

We won't get enough value to make us better than we can be with him. We'd have to get lucky with a pick and get a guy as good or better than Dame. And that doesn't happen nearly often enough to count on, IMO.

I think what you suggested is the high end of value we'd get back. And the odds aren't high that we'd get lucky enough to land a an All Star that wants to be in Portland with one of those picks, or that th young player would choose to be.

I would look at it this way (assuming he asks out; I don’t think he will): it’s less about getting equal value and more about maximizing the value you can get for him.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I would look at it this way (assuming he asks out; I don’t think he will): it’s less about getting equal value and more about maximizing the value you can get for him.

Yes, assuming he asks out, I would agree.

 

[BBert]

I wasn’t alive at the time but it kinda sounds like when we dumped Moses Malone.

Oh, God, I was so upset

 

[SharpesTriumph]

88&89 Blazers acquired Buck Willams an 8 year vet and Wayne Cooper 11 vet, and the year before Danny Young 5 year vet, and it propelled them to contender status.

The Blazers were a contender because they drafted Clyde, Porter, Kersey, and Cliff. Yeah they added a few vets at the end of the rotation, AFTER they built a great young core in the draft.

Thats totally different than the Blazers now having one young 19 year old piece of a core and trying to cram mediocre vets on his team. Teams that do that stay somewhere between mediocrity and purgatory.

Your example actually clearly illustrates that the Blazers need to keep their lottery pick and use it to build a great young core. If the Blazers traded Clyde and Porter for Buck Williams a couple years earlier they wouldn't have won shit.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

maybe, just maybe, what the Blazers are trying to do is put a better team around Dame than Olshey ever did. Olshey never once actually tried to build a team around Dame. Not one fucking time. It was always CJ & Dame

So now its Ant & Dame as the two highest paid Blazers - how is that different?

I see all the same problems of the Olshey era but with less talent and less playoff success. The one bright spot is Sharpe - but he's probably 4 years away from developing, at which point Dame will be far from his peak.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

this is a pointless discussion. You're NEVER going to convince me that trading Dame is going to make the Blazers better into a solid playoff team in the next 5 years, or more. And I'm obviously not convincing you that not trading Dame, and making a solid effort to land another all-star is the way to go

I never look at discussions as needing one of those two outcomes. If I can factually state why the position I'm arguing for is superior in a way that most independent 3rd parties would agree, well thats what matters. A single persons firm or even irrational opinion doesn't matter.

I'm open to modifying my outlook if others bring up a good reason or good logic to support it.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Agreed. We will not get good value for Dame. The best we could get would be picks that we could get lucky with.

And we could get picks to get lucky with a dozen other ways.

If so then keep him. But if the team can't contend in the next 5 years as I suspect - its worth keeping an ear on the phone to hear all the ideas of others teams.

It only takes one team to get the itch for 1 day to get a deal done for the Blazers to get massive value. Look at what the Jazz got for a clearly inferior Gobert. Or the haul the Thunder got for Paul George; arguably receiving a superior player in SGA - along with 4 future unprotected firsts and unprotected pick swaps.

Maybe a deal like that isn't available, but maybe it will be at some point.

 

[wizenheimer]

What do you consider ‘meh’ value?

I’d be fine with a few picks (including an additional 2023 pick) and a decent young building block. You also have to consider the developmental opportunity cost in terms of usage by keeping Dame.

It’s a moot point because I don’t buy that he’s going to leave anytime soon.

minor quibble: since Dame can't be traded till, IIRC, July 8, there won't be any 2023 picks coming in....unless it's a player drafted in 2023 and he remains unsigned till a Dame trade

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Also, keeping Dame eats up a huge chunk of our cap and could hamper the development of Sharpe.

He keeps us just good enough to not get good picks but not good enough to win a ring.

But you’re right that Dame gives us our best shot if we are able to put enough talent around him. I’m just not sure if that’s possible.

I think thats really the key - is there a path to the Blazers contending in the next 3-5 years? If so then it makes sense to keep Dame. If not then the rebuild yes will be better off for those 7-10+ years from now with assets from a Dame trade.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

minor quibble: since Dame can't be traded till, IIRC, July 8, there won't be any 2023 picks coming in....unless it's a player drafted in 2023 and he remains unsigned till a Dame trade

I consider this irrelevant - as a trade could be agreed to at the draft and made official in early July as happen all the time.

 

[wizenheimer]

So now its Ant & Dame as the two highest paid Blazers - how is that different?

I see all the same problems of the Olshey era but with less talent and less playoff success. The one bright spot is Sharpe - but he's probably 4 years away from developing, at which point Dame will be far from his peak.

yes....if Cronin holds onto Ant for 8 years, and holds him untouchable in trade discussions for guys like Mikal Bridges, Jalen Brown, & Siakam, it will be the same fucking idiocy as Olshey/CJ

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Dame, Sharpe, Grant, Collins and Nurk is a good team. Not a contending team, but a good one

So trade away youth/picks for a team of more older veterans that can't contend. Sounds like an Olshey plan.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

If we have to use all of that draft capital in the mere HOPES of getting a star like Dame then we wind up in the same place that we are now, likely at best.

I'd much prefer taking a swing with Dame and maybe only getting to the second round than giving up now and spending the next decade trying to get back into the playoffs.

The advantage of acquiring a new star like Dame is that they would be in their 20's, ideally low 20's, not their 30s. Nobody would advocate trading Dame for a different star in their 30s. If Dame was 24 years old; then contending now or doing a long rebuild would all be fine with him.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The advantage of acquiring a new star like Dame is that they would be in their 20's, ideally low 20's, not their 30s. Nobody would advocate trading Dame for a different star in their 30s. If Dame was 24 years old; then contending now or doing a long rebuild would all be fine with him.

Thing is, we aren't likely to acquire a player of that caliber at that age. In fact, judging by our history and the history of other teams who have traded their best player we are more likely NOT to get a player of Dame's caliber.

I'm all for investing in drafting quality players, but not at the expense of the best player we've ever had.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So trade away youth/picks for a team of more older veterans that can't contend. Sounds like an Olshey plan.

Given our assets, and keeping Dame….and hopefully Sharpe, who do you REALISTICALLY think we can add?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Given our assets, and keeping Dame….and hopefully Sharpe, who do you REALISTICALLY think we can add?

There is nobody the Blazers can add that is good enough to contend now - unless we had another Grant situation but with a superior allstar such as Jaylen Brown forcing his way here.

Outside a player forcing their way to Portland- there just aren't enough assets for the Blazers to trade for that star and still contend now with Dame. That's why the Blazers should keep their picks and draft the best player available to build for a future when maybe the can contend.

Blame Olshey or whoever if you want - but all those prior bad moves are sunk costs. The Blazers shouldn't compound that by throwing away future assets.

 

[Hoopguru]

The Blazers were a contender because they drafted Clyde, Porter, Kersey, and Cliff. Yeah they added a few vets at the end of the rotation, AFTER they built a great young core in the draft.

Thats totally different than the Blazers now having one young 19 year old piece of a core and trying to cram mediocre vets on his team. Teams that do that stay somewhere between mediocrity and purgatory.

Your example actually clearly illustrates that the Blazers need to keep their lottery pick and use it to build a great young core. If the Blazers traded Clyde and Porter for Buck Williams a couple years earlier they wouldn't have won shit.

You forgot Dame & Grant and if Sharpe pops it's not so much different than that team. You add a season vet like Buck was to this group, filling a big time need, and add in a few more role players they certainly could contend.

 

[Hoopguru]

There is nobody the Blazers can add that is good enough to contend now - unless we had another Grant situation but with a superior allstar such as Jaylen Brown forcing his way here.

Outside a player forcing their way to Portland- there just aren't enough assets for the Blazers to trade for that star and still contend now with Dame. That's why the Blazers should keep their picks and draft the best player available to build for a future when maybe the can contend.

Blame Olshey or whoever if you want - but all those prior bad moves are sunk costs. The Blazers shouldn't compound that by throwing away future assets.[/QUOTE

Hey man, it's Dame time! get with it.....

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Thing is, we aren't likely to acquire a player of that caliber at that age. In fact, judging by our history and the history of other teams who have traded their best player we are more likely NOT to get a player of Dame's caliber.

I agree we aren't likely to acquire a player of Dame's calibur but younger in a Dame trade.

But we are more likely to have a player that can contribute on a contender in 7-10 year than the 0% chance if we keep Dame.

Most likely none of the moves the Blazers can do will result in a championship.

But does trading Dame now keep the odds of one in the next few years at 0%? Do the odds of a title 10 years from now rise for 3.5% to 5.5%? That small difference a decade from now is the reason to do a Dame trade.

Now I understand some would just prefer we keep Dame and I'm fine with that. But I don't want us to trade away our lottery picks and future assets that reduce that title chance from 3.5% to 0.5%. That's the Olshey plan and what many seem to have reserved themselves to the Blazers doing with certainty regardless of how good it makes the Blazers this summer.

 

[Mediocre Man]

There is nobody the Blazers can add that is good enough to contend now - unless we had another Grant situation but with a superior allstar such as Jaylen Brown forcing his way here.

Outside a player forcing their way to Portland- there just aren't enough assets for the Blazers to trade for that star and still contend now with Dame. That's why the Blazers should keep their picks and draft the best player available to build for a future when maybe the can contend.

Blame Olshey or whoever if you want - but all those prior bad moves are sunk costs. The Blazers shouldn't compound that by throwing away future assets.

Yes, we agree on this completely. Also, No one is forcing their way to Portland

 

[SharpesTriumph]

You forgot Dame & Grant and if Sharpe pops it's not so much different than that team. You add a season vet like Buck was to this group, filling a big time need, and add in a few more role players they certainly could contend.

I don't see Dame, Grant and an improved Sharpe as anywhere close to a core as the early 90's Blazers teams.

Porter
Clyde - Ainge
Kersey
Buck
Duck - Cliff

Thats 7 legit rotational guys - and I'd take 6 of them over Grant. I'd take Clyde over Dame. It's like saying the Blazers right now are not so much different than the title winning Warriors.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Yes, we agree on this completely. Also, No one is forcing their way to Portland

Grant did, rumors are Jaylen Brown might. I'd say unlikely, but its not a zero % chance.

It's not a draw at all to Portland, there is no draw there. Its Dame is viewed highly among peers and Chauncey among many players too.

 

[julius]

Yes, we agree on this completely. Also, No one is forcing their way to Portland

100%.

IF someone "forces" their way onto the team, it'll be a Grant level player. Meaning, meh.

And the only realistic hope for the team is to get the #1 pick. Otherwise, it'll be a bad season with us only having Sharpe to keep us interested.

 

[blazerkor]

I agree we aren't likely to acquire a player of Dame's calibur but younger in a Dame trade.

But we are more likely to have a player that can contribute on a contender in 7-10 year than the 0% chance if we keep Dame.

Most likely none of the moves the Blazers can do will result in a championship.

But does trading Dame now keep the odds of one in the next few years at 0%? Do the odds of a title 10 years from now rise for 3.5% to 5.5%? That small difference a decade from now is the reason to do a Dame trade.

Now I understand some would just prefer we keep Dame and I'm fine with that. But I don't want us to trade away our lottery picks and future assets that reduce that title chance from 3.5% to 0.5%. That's the Olshey plan and what many seem to have reserved themselves to the Blazers doing with certainty regardless of how good it makes the Blazers this summer.

The fact that you throw out an absolute like 0% gives you very little credibility as you spam this thread with the same take. We get it, you want to trade Dame and don't want to try to build around him using the draft picks that we have in this draft and future draft assets. It's a reasonable take... saying that there is a 0% chance that we build a contender around Dame however is not at all reasonable.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

The fact that you throw out an absolute like 0% gives you very little credibility as you spam this thread with the same take. We get it, you want to trade Dame and don't want to try to build around him using the draft picks that we have in this draft and future draft assets. It's a reasonable take... saying that there is a 0% chance that we build a contender around Dame however is not at all reasonable.

Perhaps I should have said 0.2% - would that make it better? I wasn't saying odds of building a contender - I was saying odds of winning a championship. Yeah I think its pretty low the next few years, maybe you think its higher, fair enough. The point I was making is I don't want an irrelevant chance of that in the next few season while drastically reducing the chance 7-10 years from now.

I never said I wanted to trade Dame - in fact I've acknowledged many times I'm open to keeping him here forever, he means a lot to this franchise. But it needs to be in a Kobe Bryant/Dirk Nowitzki/Tim Duncan/Reggie Miller role where the team rebuilds with youth and he is just an old veteran along for the ride.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

100%.

IF someone "forces" their way onto the team, it'll be a Grant level player. Meaning, meh.

And the only realistic hope for the team is to get the #1 pick. Otherwise, it'll be a bad season with us only having Sharpe to keep us interested.

I agree with that. #1 pick is only way this team is compelling - and that 10% chance is legit.

Although even if we win it - having Wemba healthy, having him ready to contribute, having other starters healthy and improving, getting the rest of the roster with the right role players are all major hurdles. So its certainly not a guarantee this team is contending with Wemby. But it would be super exciting to try and see.

 

[blazerkor]

The lack of imagination here is embarrassing. The fact that so many of you can't fathom a way that this team could become relevant around Dame isn't just lame, it's weird. Of course it's more likely than not that if we go all in on getting vets with our draft assets that we will fall short of a championship but getting a championship by using that strategy is far from impossible.

If for some reason that rumor that has very little corroboration is true, that we can send the Bulls 5 second rounders to fulfill our obligation to them... then we could have two picks in this draft and four future firsts all of which we could trade draft day. That's a shit ton of value that we would have to send out. If the rumor isn't true and we would have to give the Bulls a future second just to guarantee them the pick next year, we would still have up to 5 draft picks to deal. If we get lucky and land that first pick we would have at the very least 4 picks that we could still deal to try and get what we need to contend.

I think if we keep Dame there is not only a path to contention but multiple paths to contention.